Baker v. Baker

WASTE, C. J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment vacating and setting aside a certain final decree of divorce theretofore entered in an independent action between the parties hereto. We need not pause to discuss the grounds warranting such relief, for admittedly the vacated divorce decree was the product of extrinsic fraud practiced by the appellant herein. Appellant’s sole contention upon this appeal is that respondent has misconceived her remedy. It is the appellant’s theory that having .discovered the fraud within one month after the entry of the decree affected thereby, respondent should have moved to vacate in the divorce action, either under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by a motion addressed to the inherent jurisdiction of the court to purge its records of judgments and decrees fraudulently procured. The existence of these asserted “exclusive” legal remedies is said to preclude the institution and prosecution of the present equitable action. With this contention we cannot agree.

It is settled that equity will relieve an injured party from the effect of a judgment procured, as was the decree here vacated, by extrinsic fraud.

(Sohler

v.

Sohler,

135 Cal. 323 [67 Pac. 282, 87 Am. St. Rep. 98] ;

Bacon

v.

Bacon,

150 Cal. 477, 481 [89 Pac. 317] ;

Simonton

v.

Los Angeles T. & S. Bank,

192 Cal. 651, 656 [221 Pac. 368];

Jeffords

v.

Young,

98 Cal. App. 400, 404 [277 Pac. 163].) The fact that a party injured by a fraudulent judgment may move in the principal action to have the same set aside does not oust equity of its jurisdiction in this particular. The remedies are distinct and cumulative. The decisions are numerous to the effect that a suit in equity to vacate a judgment procured by extrinsic fraud may be prosecuted by the injured party even though there be available to him in the principal action a motion to vacate under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure.